On 10/31/2012 6:14 PM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:

On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 7:59 PM, Stephen P. King <stephe...@charter.net <mailto:stephe...@charter.net>> wrote:

    Dear Cowboy,

        One question. Was the general outline that I was trying to
    explain make any sense to you? Without being obvious about it, I
    am trying to finely parse the difference between the logic of
    temporal systems and the logic of atemporal systems - such as the
    Platonic Realm - such that I might show that reasonings that are
    correct in one are not necessarily correct in the other.

This was not obvious to me, and going over the posts, I see how you're leaning that way... but why not just say that, then? Don't get me wrong, I love Joycean labyrinths as much as the next guy, but if the topic is on some level tending towards sincerity, then I don't see the benefit "in not being obvious". Then again, I'm a Captain Obvious type. Should get the shirt.

Hi Cowboy,

    I am dyslexic, this colors/flavors everything I write....

    One problem that I have discovered (I thank Brent for bringing
    this up!) is that in our reasoning we set up constructions - such
    as the person on the desert island - that blur the very
    distinction that I am trying to frame. We should never assume
    temporal situations to argue for relations that are atemporal
    unless we are prepared to show the morphisms between the two

Isn't this already physical framework when you seem to be arguing for time as primitive ("n incompatible with comp to begin with, after which you seek to carve out a distinction, when you've already mixed at the base?

My argument is that it is impossible to 'derive" Becoming from Being, but we can derive Being from Becoming. So why not work with the latter idea? I am trying to get Bruno to admit, among other things, that he has to assume a non-well founded logic for his result to work.;-)

        Bruno would have us, in step 8 of UDA, to "not assume a
    concrete robust physical universe". He goes on to argue that
    Occam's razor would demand that we reject the very idea of the
    existence of physical worlds given that he can 'show' how they can
    be reconstructed or derived from irreducible - and thus
    ontologically primitive - Arithmetic 'objects' {0, 1, +, *} that
    are "operating" somehow in an atemporal way.

UDA does not contradict itself here. Restraints on processing power, on memory and print capacities, implying time as some illusion emanating from eternal primitives, don't exist when framed non-constructively, more like sets of assignments, rather than operations in your sense, by which you seem to mean "physically primitive operations" on par with ontologically primitive arrow of time. Isn't this like cracking open the axioms, and then complaining that the building has cracks in it?

There are simply a pile of concepts that are just assumed without explanation in any discussion of philosophy/logic/math. My point is that a theory must be have the capacity of being communicable ab initio for it to even be considered. When I am confronted with a theory or a "result" or an argument that seems to disallow for communicability I am going to baulk at it!

    We should be able to make the argument run without ever appealing
    to a Platonic realm or any kind of 'realism'.

It's hard for me to see bets being made without some cash/investment/gap of faith on the table.


    In my thinking, if arithmetic is powerful enough to be a TOE and
    run the TOE to generate our world, then that power should be
    obvious. My problem is that it looks tooo much like the
    'explanation' of creation that we find in mythology, whether it is
    the Ptah <http://ancientegyptonline.co.uk/ptah.html> of ancient
    Egypt or  the egg of Pangu
    <http://www.livingmyths.com/Chinese.htm> or whatever other myth
    one might like. What makes an explanation framed in the
    sophisticated and formal language of modal logic any different?

Nothing, at its base. Appearances and looks can deceive, as numbers can too.

Would this not make that deception something in our understanding and not the fault of numbers? After all, numbers are supposedly the least ambiguous of entities!

        I agree 1000000000% with your point about 'miracles'. I am
    very suspicions of "special explanations' or 'natural conspiracies'.

Same here. My point with humanism + natural sciences, including standard model, is that you have to be straight about your wager: there's my magic primitive right there, warts and all.

Its deceiving to, on the one hand assert "no miracles" whatsoever, and then ask for it at the instant of Big Bang. "Human" in this sense is both deceptive through error and useful for power.

I think that we are too eager for explanations and are willing to play fast and lose with concepts so long as we can hand wave problems away.

      (This comes from my upbringing as a "Bible-believing
    Fundamentalist" and eventual rejection of that literalist mental
    straight-jacket.) As I see things, any condition or situation that
    can be used to 'explain' some other conceptually difficult
    condition or situation should be either universal in that they
    apply anywhere and anytime or are such that there must be a
    particular configuration of events for them to occur. This
    principle (?) applies to everything, be it the Big Bang initial
    state/singularity or consciousness.

        One point about the Big Bang. It seems to me that if we are
    considering conditions in our current physical universe that
    involve sufficiently small scales and/or high enough energies that
    there should be the equivalent to the Big Bang initial conditions,
    thus the Big Bang should be considered as an ongoing process even
    now and not some epochally special event.

You argue both comp ("universal, anywhere, eternal") and physically primitive universe ("current physical universe", "ongoing process" etc).

    It seems to me that we need both to come up with ontological theories!

That's why I ask above why you burn your money before you put it on the (comp) table and claim the game is rigged? Just because "eternal is foundation", doesn't imply that process isn't possible on some higher level. Your alluding to mysticism points towards different ways you can frame temporal and "atemporal" systems. There's not "a difference", there are many, which is perhaps a fruitful avenue of inquiry.

I do agree with you on the straight-jacket problem. But extreme limitation is also liberating.

    Freedom from is not freedom to.

Cowboy Obvious



You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to